Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Note that, the preliminary amendment filed October 3, 2024, has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yapici et al (US 2020/0115653).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Yapici et al a viscoelastic solid surfactant composition for textile treatment having, based on the total weight thereof, (i) a total amount of 30 to 70 wt % of at least one surfactant, wherein at least one anionic surfactant and at least one non-ionic surfactant are present, and (ii) a total amount of 0.01 to 1 wt % of at least one organic gelating compound having a molar mass <1,000 g/mol, a solubility in water of less than 0.1 g/l (20° C.) and a structure including at least one hydrocarbon structural unit having 6 to 20 carbon atoms and additionally an organic structural unit covalently bonded to the aforementioned hydrocarbon unit, which organic structural unit has at least two groups selected from —OH—, —NH— or mixtures thereof, and (iii) water, represents a readily soluble, aesthetically appealing and storage-stable form of a solid composition for preparing washing liquor including surfactant. See Abstract. Suitable gelators include benzylidene alditols, etc. See paras. 181-200. It is preferred according to the invention if the viscoelastic, solid surfactant composition of the first subject matter of the invention is in the form of a shaped body. A shaped body is a single body that stabilizes itself in the shape imparted to it. This dimensionally stable body is formed from a molding compound (e.g. a composition) in such a way that this molding compound is deliberately brought into a predetermined shape, for example by pouring a liquid composition into a casting mold and then curing the liquid composition, for example as part of a sol-gel process. All conceivable molds are possible here, for example spheres, cubes, cuboids, circular disks, wells, shells, prisms, octahedrons, tetrahedrons, egg-shaped, dog, cat, mouse, horse, torso, bust, pillow, car, oval disk with embossed trademark, and much more.
It is preferred according to the invention if the shaped body of the viscoelastic, solid surfactant composition of the first subject matter of the invention has a weight of at least 1 g, preferably at least 5 g, particularly preferably at least 10 g. See para. 228-230.
The viscoelastic, solid surfactant composition can be prepared by a liquid composition, containing, based on the total weight thereof, a total amount of from 0.01 to 1 wt. % of at least one of said organic gelator compounds (in particular at least one benzylidene alditol compound of formula (I) (vide supra)), in the presence of water, and 30 to 70 wt. % surfactant and at least one anionic surfactant and at least one non-ionic surfactant and possibly optional additives being brought to a temperature above the sol-gel transition temperature of the liquid composition, and subsequently the heated liquid composition being introduced into a mold, preferably into a cavity in a trough mold, and being cooled in said mold below the sol-gel transition temperature to form a viscoelastic solid shaped body. See para. 224. Note that, the Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the mixing time of the surfactant and gelling agent and the mold filling time within a range as recited by the instant claims. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.
Yapici et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a method for manufacturing a detergent portion unit comprising a dimensionally stable solid gel, the method comprising the steps of providing a first flowable surfactant-containing composition; providing a second flowable gelling-agent-containing composition different from the first flowable composition; feeding the first and second flowable compositions to a mold; introducing a first flowable surfactant-containing composition and a second flowable gelling-agent-containing composition different from the first flowable surfactant-containing composition compositions into the mold; mixing the first flowable surfactant-containing composition and the second flowable gelling-agent-containing composition compositions in the mold to form a surfactant-containing and gelling-agent- containing mixture as recited by the instant claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to manufacture a detergent portion unit comprising a dimensionally stable solid gel, the method comprising the steps of providing a first flowable surfactant-containing composition; providing a second flowable gelling-agent-containing composition different from the first flowable composition; feeding the first and second flowable compositions to a mold; introducing a first flowable surfactant-containing composition and a second flowable gelling-agent-containing composition different from the first flowable surfactant-containing composition compositions into the mold; mixing the first flowable surfactant-containing composition and the second flowable gelling-agent-containing composition compositions in the mold to form a surfactant-containing and gelling-agent- containing mixture as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of Yapici et al suggest a method of manufacturing a detergent portion unit comprising a dimensionally stable solid gel, the method comprising the steps of providing a first flowable surfactant-containing composition; providing a second flowable gelling-agent-containing composition different from the first flowable composition; feeding the first and second flowable compositions to a mold; introducing a first flowable surfactant-containing composition and a second flowable gelling-agent-containing composition different from the first flowable surfactant-containing composition compositions into the mold; mixing the first flowable surfactant-containing composition and the second flowable gelling-agent-containing composition compositions in the mold to form a surfactant-containing and gelling-agent- containing mixture as recited by the instant claims.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yapici et al (US 2020/0115653) as applied to claims 1 and 4-20 above, and further in view of Trinchera et al (US 2021/0301225).
Yapici et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Yapici et al do not teach the use of an injector for introducing the gelling agent and surfactant into the mold as recited by the instant claims.
Trinchera et al teach a method for producing a multiphase washing or cleaning agent shaped body, including the steps of: a) providing a first free-flowing washing or cleaning agent; b) providing a second washing or cleaning agent; c) feeding the first and second washing or cleaning agent to an injector; d) introducing the first free-flowing washing or cleaning agent and the second free-flowing washing or cleaning agent into a mold by way of the injector; e) solidifying at least one of the free-flowing first and second washing or cleaning agents in the mold, forming a multiphase washing or cleaning agent shaped body; f) removing the multiphase washing or cleaning agent shaped body from the mold, wherein the first and second free-flowing washing or cleaning agent are introduced into the mold through outlet openings in the injector, which are separated. Trinchera et al also relates to multiphase shaped bodies produced by way of this method.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an injector for introducing the gelling agent and surfactant into the mold in the method taught by Yapici et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Trinchera et al teach the use of an injector to introduce a gelling agent and surfactant into a mold in a similar process and further, Yapici et al teach the mixing a gelling agent and surfactant in a mold in general.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/854020 (reference application) or claims 1-20 of 18/854120. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1’20 of 18/854020 or claims 1-20 of 18/854120 encompass the material limitations of the instant claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to manufacture a detergent portion unit comprising a dimensionally stable solid gel, the method comprising the steps of providing a first flowable surfactant-containing composition; providing a second flowable gelling-agent-containing composition different from the first flowable composition; feeding the first and second flowable compositions to a mold; introducing a first flowable surfactant-containing composition and a second flowable gelling-agent-containing composition different from the first flowable surfactant-containing composition compositions into the mold; mixing the first flowable surfactant-containing composition and the second flowable gelling-agent-containing composition compositions in the mold to form a surfactant-containing and gelling-agent- containing mixture as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/854020 (reference application) or claims 1-20 of 18/854120 suggest a method of manufacturing a detergent portion unit comprising a dimensionally stable solid gel, the method comprising the steps of providing a first flowable surfactant-containing composition; providing a second flowable gelling-agent-containing composition different from the first flowable composition; feeding the first and second flowable compositions to a mold; introducing a first flowable surfactant-containing composition and a second flowable gelling-agent-containing composition different from the first flowable surfactant-containing composition compositions into the mold; mixing the first flowable surfactant-containing composition and the second flowable gelling-agent-containing composition compositions in the mold to form a surfactant-containing and gelling-agent- containing mixture as recited by the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights